B. WHETHER the APPLICANT was DEPRIVED of his LIBERTY within the MEANING of Article 5 § 1 EMRK
1. The PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
(a) THE APPLICANT §§ 101 - 107
101. The applicant contended that although under domestic law, placement of people with mental disorders in a social care institution was regarded as " VOLUNTARY ", his transfer to the Pastra social care home CONSTITUTED a DEPRIVATION of LIBERTY . He maintained that, as in the case of STORCK v. Germany (no.61.603/00, ECHR 2005 -V), the objective and subjective elements of detention were present in his case.
102. With regard to the nature of the measure, the applicant submitted that living in a social care home in a remote mountain location amounted to physical isolation from society. He could not have chosen to leave on his own initiative since, having no identity papers or money, he would soon have faced the risk of being stopped by the police for a routine check, a widespread practice in Bulgaria.
103. Absences from the social care home were subject to permission. The distance of approximately 420 km between the institution and his home town and the fact that he had no access to the invalidity pension had made it impossible for him to travel to Ruse any more than three times. The applicant further submitted that he had been denied permission to travel on many other occasions by the home's management. He added that, in accordance with a practice with no legal basis, residents who left the premises for longer than the authorised period were treated as fugitives and were searched for by the police. He stated in that connection that on one occasion the police had arrested him in Ruse and that, although they had not taken him back to the home, the fact that the director had asked for him to be located and transferred back had amounted to a decisive restriction on his right to personal liberty . He stated that he had been arrested and detained by the police pending the arrival of staff from the home to COLLECT HIM, without having been informed of the grounds for depriving him of his liberty . Since he had been transferred back under duress, it was immaterial that those involved had been employees of the home.
104. The applicant further noted that his placement in the home had already lasted more than eight years and that his hopes of leaving one day were futile, as the decision had to be approved by his guardian.
105. As to the consequences of his placement, the applicant highlighted the SEVERITY of the REGIME to which he was subject. His occupational activities and movements had been subject to thorough and practical supervision by the home's employees. He had been required to follow a strict daily routine, getting up, going to bed and eating at set times . He had had no free choice as to his clothing, the preparation of his meals, participation in cultural events or the development of relations with other people, including intimate relationships as the home's residents were all men. He had been allowed to watch television in the morning only. Accordingly, his stay in the home had caused a perceptible DETERIORATION in his wellbeing and the onset of INSTITUTIONALISATION SYNDROME, in other words the inability to reintegrate into the community and lead a normal life.
106. With regard of the subjective element, the applicant submitted that his situation differed from that examined in H. M. v. Switzerland (no. 39.187/98, ECHR 2002 - II), in which the applicant had consented to her placement in a nursing home. He himself had never given such consent. His guardian at the time, Ms R.P. (see § 12 above), had not consulted him on the placement and, moreover, he did not even know her, nor had he been informed of the existence of the placement agreement of 10 December 2002 (see § 14 above), which he had never signed. Those circumstances reflected a widespread practice in Bulgaria whereby once people were deprived of legal capacity, even partially, they were deemed incapable of expressing their wishes. In addition, it was clear from the medical documents that the applicant's desire to leave the home had been interpreted not a freely expressed wish, but rather as a symptom of his mental illness.
107. Lastly, in the case of H.M. v. Switzerland (cited above) the authorities had based their decision to place the applicant in a nursing home on a thorough examination showing that the living conditions in her own home had severely deteriorated as a result of her lack of cooperation with a social welfare authority. By contrast, the applicant in the present case had never been offered and had never refused alternative social care at home."
Soweit das Beschwerde - Vorbringen von Rusi STANEV vor dem EGMR in Straßburg vorerst nur bezüglich Art. 5 Abs.1 der EMRK das zu einer mehrfachen Verurteilung Bulgariens geführt hat. In absolut vergleichbarer Weise wurde unserem WOLFGANG S. am 17.Oktober 2003 durch unmittelbares Betreiben der Kriminalpolizei die persönliche Freiheit entzogen durch die Hand einer "Lebenshelferin" und bis heute Samstag, 11. Mai 2013 dauert diese hochgradig rechtswidrige Freiheitsberaubung an und führt nun zur Anklage gegen diese schon sehr eigenartige RES PUBLICA AUSTRIACA vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg, W E N N , ja wenn nicht schleunigst nun durch Rekurs - Entscheidung des Landesgerichtes Salzburg in allen Beschwerdepunkten rechtskonforme Verhältnisse hergestellt werden.
FIAT IUSTITIA !
1. The PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
(a) THE APPLICANT §§ 101 - 107
101. The applicant contended that although under domestic law, placement of people with mental disorders in a social care institution was regarded as " VOLUNTARY ", his transfer to the Pastra social care home CONSTITUTED a DEPRIVATION of LIBERTY . He maintained that, as in the case of STORCK v. Germany (no.61.603/00, ECHR 2005 -V), the objective and subjective elements of detention were present in his case.
102. With regard to the nature of the measure, the applicant submitted that living in a social care home in a remote mountain location amounted to physical isolation from society. He could not have chosen to leave on his own initiative since, having no identity papers or money, he would soon have faced the risk of being stopped by the police for a routine check, a widespread practice in Bulgaria.
103. Absences from the social care home were subject to permission. The distance of approximately 420 km between the institution and his home town and the fact that he had no access to the invalidity pension had made it impossible for him to travel to Ruse any more than three times. The applicant further submitted that he had been denied permission to travel on many other occasions by the home's management. He added that, in accordance with a practice with no legal basis, residents who left the premises for longer than the authorised period were treated as fugitives and were searched for by the police. He stated in that connection that on one occasion the police had arrested him in Ruse and that, although they had not taken him back to the home, the fact that the director had asked for him to be located and transferred back had amounted to a decisive restriction on his right to personal liberty . He stated that he had been arrested and detained by the police pending the arrival of staff from the home to COLLECT HIM, without having been informed of the grounds for depriving him of his liberty . Since he had been transferred back under duress, it was immaterial that those involved had been employees of the home.
104. The applicant further noted that his placement in the home had already lasted more than eight years and that his hopes of leaving one day were futile, as the decision had to be approved by his guardian.
105. As to the consequences of his placement, the applicant highlighted the SEVERITY of the REGIME to which he was subject. His occupational activities and movements had been subject to thorough and practical supervision by the home's employees. He had been required to follow a strict daily routine, getting up, going to bed and eating at set times . He had had no free choice as to his clothing, the preparation of his meals, participation in cultural events or the development of relations with other people, including intimate relationships as the home's residents were all men. He had been allowed to watch television in the morning only. Accordingly, his stay in the home had caused a perceptible DETERIORATION in his wellbeing and the onset of INSTITUTIONALISATION SYNDROME, in other words the inability to reintegrate into the community and lead a normal life.
106. With regard of the subjective element, the applicant submitted that his situation differed from that examined in H. M. v. Switzerland (no. 39.187/98, ECHR 2002 - II), in which the applicant had consented to her placement in a nursing home. He himself had never given such consent. His guardian at the time, Ms R.P. (see § 12 above), had not consulted him on the placement and, moreover, he did not even know her, nor had he been informed of the existence of the placement agreement of 10 December 2002 (see § 14 above), which he had never signed. Those circumstances reflected a widespread practice in Bulgaria whereby once people were deprived of legal capacity, even partially, they were deemed incapable of expressing their wishes. In addition, it was clear from the medical documents that the applicant's desire to leave the home had been interpreted not a freely expressed wish, but rather as a symptom of his mental illness.
107. Lastly, in the case of H.M. v. Switzerland (cited above) the authorities had based their decision to place the applicant in a nursing home on a thorough examination showing that the living conditions in her own home had severely deteriorated as a result of her lack of cooperation with a social welfare authority. By contrast, the applicant in the present case had never been offered and had never refused alternative social care at home."
Soweit das Beschwerde - Vorbringen von Rusi STANEV vor dem EGMR in Straßburg vorerst nur bezüglich Art. 5 Abs.1 der EMRK das zu einer mehrfachen Verurteilung Bulgariens geführt hat. In absolut vergleichbarer Weise wurde unserem WOLFGANG S. am 17.Oktober 2003 durch unmittelbares Betreiben der Kriminalpolizei die persönliche Freiheit entzogen durch die Hand einer "Lebenshelferin" und bis heute Samstag, 11. Mai 2013 dauert diese hochgradig rechtswidrige Freiheitsberaubung an und führt nun zur Anklage gegen diese schon sehr eigenartige RES PUBLICA AUSTRIACA vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg, W E N N , ja wenn nicht schleunigst nun durch Rekurs - Entscheidung des Landesgerichtes Salzburg in allen Beschwerdepunkten rechtskonforme Verhältnisse hergestellt werden.
RAUCHENDE RICHTERKÖPFE im LANDESGERICHT SALZBURG :
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen